sign on form

Stay up to date

Sign up now for all our news
in one monthly digest

Don’t make it easier for dictators to steal

Main
Banks
By Global Witness | London, Feb 24 2011

This comment piece by Anthea Lawson, the head of Global Witness's Kleptocracycampaign, was published in the Financial Times on 24th February 2011

The world may belatedly be waking up to the damage done by a financial system that allows corrupt heads of state to hide loot in respected foreign banks. Wednesday's calls for the seizure of the Gaddafi family's assets have come far too late for those Libyans now on the streets enduring the regime's brutality. Last week saw a similar scramble to locate fortunes believed to be held by Hosni Mubarak in foreign banks. Switzerland froze the former Egyptian leader's assets and Vince Cable, the UK business secretary, called on his government to follow suit. Reports suggest that Mr Mubarak was able to shift his money to friendly Gulf states even as protesters called for his resignation in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

Switzerland has also frozen the funds of Zein al-Abidine Ben Ali, the former Tunisian president, as has the European Union. France has opened an investigation into assets linked to Mr Ben Ali.

Discussion has so far centred on how this money might be returned to the countries it came from to benefit ordinary people and promote economic development. But the real question is, what was the money doing in banks in France and Switzerland in the first place? If there is enough evidence of corruption to freeze Mr Mubarak's or Mr Ben Ali's funds now that they have been forced from office, why was it not sufficiently obvious at the point when they were accepted?

Anti-money laundering laws are designed to identify criminal money entering the financial system, whether from corruption, organised crime or terrorism. Banks are required to do "due diligence" on their customers; they must identify those who are senior officials or their family members and associates - "politically exposed persons" or PEPs in the jargon - and subject them to more stringent checks. Those who potentially have access to state funds are deemed to present a higher risk.

The frozen Mubarak and Ben Ali money has been collecting in European banks that are required to do such due diligence. What questions did these banks ask about the money they were accepting? Did they reassure themselves that it had been legitimately earned?

One of Global Witness's recent reports shows how corrupt Nigerian funds, siphoned off by two former state governors, was held in London bank accounts at HSBC, Barclays, NatWest, RBS and UBS. This was happening between 2001 and 2005: that is several years after the Abacha scandal, when it became clear that $1.3bn of the former Nigerian dictator's funds had come through 23 London banks. The Financial Services Authority privately reprimanded the banks involved in the Abacha case, although there were no public statements. Nor it is clear that any action has been taken regarding the state governors case. This softly-softly approach has been as hopeless for money-laundering standards as it was for prudential regulation.

 

In the cases Global Witness examined, funds were later returned to Nigeria. But the damage is done at the point when money is diverted from its intended public use. If banks were not willing to accept looted funds in the first place, corruption would not be possible on the scale too often seen.

Now is the right time to be talking about this. In Paris this week, the little-known but influential Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development body that sets the global anti-money laundering standard is meeting. Best known in recent years for blacklisting financial centres such as São Tomé and Príncipe, Turkmenistan and Iran in response to pressure from the Group of 20 leading economies, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is considering changes to the rules.

Some of the proposals are excellent, such as ensuring that tax evaders and those who advise them and bank their money can be prosecuted for money laundering. But the FATF wants to remove officials' "family members and associates" from the list of those on whom banks must perform extra checks. To make this suggestion is to misunderstand graft. Corrupt rulers do not just distribute money to family members and cronies in order to help launder it; this is part of their means of staying in power.

Banks may not be under enough pressure to implement the existing standard properly, but that is no reason to water it down. 

 

contact

 

Robert Palmer             +44 (0)20 7492 5860       
Anthea Lawson             +44(0)20 7492 5882        
Oliver Courtney             +44 (0)7815 731889       

 

Global Witness Website

Barclays
Barclays is a major global financial services provider engaged in retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth management and investment management…
HSBC
Headquartered in London, HSBC is one of the largest banking and financial services organisations in the world. HSBC operates from around 6,100 offices in 72 countries and…
RBS
RBS was founded in 1727 and is one of the major UK banks. RBS has 40 million customers using the financial services of over 30 brands, including NatWest, Direct Line, Churchill,…
UBS
Modern UBS was formed through a merger of the Union Bank of Switzerland and the Swiss Bank Corporation in June 1998.  UBS is headquartered in Zurich and Basel and it…
Login

Good login. Redirecting to
'My Banktrack'.
Wrong login. Click here to request your password.
An email has been sent with your login!
Request password
This email is unknown.
<< Back
Search
Please provide one or more search terms

Join our mailinglist

Get all our latest news releases delivered straight to your inbox - or get our News Digest once a month

banktrack tweets
RT @foeeurope: Half all #EU citizens could produce renewable energy by 2050 - new study on #PeoplePower https://t.co/ImF35Af53G https://t.c
Sep 27, 2016
contact
route
Vismarkt 15
6511 VJ Nijmegen
Netherlands


contact@banktrack.org
Contact us